Latest Breaking News

brooklynite

(94,581 posts) Fri Oct 21, 2016, 11:48 AM Oct 2016

AT&T in 'Advanced Talks' to Acquire CNN and HBO Parent Company Time Warner

Source: Mac Rumors

AT&T is in "advanced talks" to acquire media company Time Warner, and a deal could be finalized as early as this weekend, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Bloomberg on Thursday said senior executives at AT&T and Time Warner met in recent weeks to discuss a possible merger, but it said the talks were informal at that stage.

The talks toward what likely would be a cash-and-stock deal have come together quickly, are fluid, and still could fall through, according the people familiar with the matter. An agreement also could be delayed, they said.

Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes has previously told investors he would entertain a sale of the media company, but only if it feels the price is right. In 2014, Bewkes and his board reportedly turned down an $85-a-share offer from 21st Century Fox, which valued Time Warner at more than $75 billion.

Read more: http://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/21/att-advanced-talks-to-acquire-time-warner/

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

AT&T in 'Advanced Talks' to Acquire CNN and HBO Parent Company Time Warner (Original Post) brooklynite Oct 2016 OP

FFS CurtEastPoint Oct 2016 #1

Less competition ... aggiesal Oct 2016 #2

No, just don't allow this deal to proceed because of the anti-competitive nature of it. This is a still_one Oct 2016 #4

It is like they don't care anymore rurallib Oct 2016 #6

very true still_one Oct 2016 #14

In the past a deal like this would not have been allowed, but since the Comcast/NBC deal I am not so still_one Oct 2016 #3

So they would own DTV and the Cable company? Thrill Oct 2016 #5

Actually, no. TW sold it's cable operation to Charter. brooklynite Oct 2016 #12

Actually TW Cable was spun off from TW Inc several years before onenote Oct 2016 #15

Why don't we just merge into one giant mega corporation and get it over with? Initech Oct 2016 #7

We could call it Ma Bell! HAB911 Oct 2016 #8

Because there is money to be made every step of the way, why skip steps? harun Oct 2016 #19

Monopoly between Comcast and At&T. Sad! sarcasmo Oct 2016 #9

Huh? It may be a bad deal but it's not creating a monopoly onenote Oct 2016 #20

You really think this will bring prices under control? sarcasmo Oct 2016 #21

Today, a company like TW can basically charge whatever it wants onenote Oct 2016 #24

Let's see how it plays out dollar wise in 3-5 years. sarcasmo Oct 2016 #25

This should not be allowed Third Doctor Oct 2016 #10

Cable bill will be the price of a mid size car payment. sarcasmo Oct 2016 #22

Last I checked.......... Friend or Foe Oct 2016 #11

Because the Govt can't proactively bar business deals? brooklynite Oct 2016 #13

The merged entity will be call "Evil Corp", I presume? KeepItReal Oct 2016 #16

to some in the industry the att logo is refered to as the death star dembotoz Oct 2016 #17

Bet on it. AT&T is as odious as they come. Auggie Oct 2016 #18

And an eight member Supreme Court jberryhill Oct 2016 #27

I sure hope the Justice Dept bans this merger. napi21 Oct 2016 #28

How long until 1 corporation owns the entire globe ??? SamKnause Oct 2016 #29

If anything these companies should be broken up in a dozen pieces doc03 Oct 2016 #30

Ironically, with this deal AT&T would be bigger than when they were the Bell system Yavin4 Oct 2016 #31

CurtEastPoint

(18,646 posts)

1. FFS

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 11:51 AM

Oct 2016

aggiesal

(8,916 posts)

2. Less competition ...

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 11:56 AM

Oct 2016

They now own DirecTV and they're going after TimeWarner?

Time to break up AT&T again.

still_one

(92,204 posts)

4. No, just don't allow this deal to proceed because of the anti-competitive nature of it. This is a

Reply to aggiesal (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:03 PM

Oct 2016

far bigger deal then the DirectTV deal.

I have no doubt they will use the Comcast/NBC as their precedent when they argue the case.

I cannot see how regulators would let this deal go through, but based on past actions I wouldn't be surprised if it happened

rurallib

(62,416 posts)

6. It is like they don't care anymore

Reply to still_one (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:04 PM

Oct 2016

still_one

(92,204 posts)

14. very true

Reply to rurallib (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 01:04 PM

Oct 2016

still_one

(92,204 posts)

3. In the past a deal like this would not have been allowed, but since the Comcast/NBC deal I am not so

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 11:58 AM

Oct 2016

sure they will stop it.

They are actually acquiring Time Warner, and that includes CNN

Thrill

(19,178 posts)

5. So they would own DTV and the Cable company?

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:04 PM

Oct 2016

brooklynite

(94,581 posts)

12. Actually, no. TW sold it's cable operation to Charter.

Reply to Thrill (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:43 PM

Oct 2016

What ATT would be buying is the programming side.

onenote

(42,704 posts)

15. Actually TW Cable was spun off from TW Inc several years before

Reply to brooklynite (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 01:14 PM

Oct 2016

Charter bought TW Cable. TW INC had nothing to do with the charter deal.

Initech

(100,079 posts)

7. Why don't we just merge into one giant mega corporation and get it over with?

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:06 PM

Oct 2016

These mega mergers are getting more insane by the day. And of course we're the ones who get screwed.

HAB911

(8,893 posts)

8. We could call it Ma Bell!

Reply to Initech (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:30 PM

Oct 2016

harun

(11,348 posts)

19. Because there is money to be made every step of the way, why skip steps?

Reply to Initech (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 03:34 PM

Oct 2016

*sarcasm*

Money for owners of shares in the respective companies that is.

sarcasmo

(23,968 posts)

9. Monopoly between Comcast and At&T. Sad!

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:35 PM

Oct 2016

onenote

(42,704 posts)

20. Huh? It may be a bad deal but it's not creating a monopoly

Reply to sarcasmo (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 06:28 PM

Oct 2016

And it actually could have some benefits if the regulators have the cohones to impose conditions that bring the prices demanded by programmers such as TW under control.

sarcasmo

(23,968 posts)

21. You really think this will bring prices under control?

Reply to onenote (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 07:31 PM

Oct 2016

onenote

(42,704 posts)

24. Today, a company like TW can basically charge whatever it wants

Reply to sarcasmo (Reply #21)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 10:14 PM

Oct 2016

It has must buy product -- CNN, HBO, TBS, TNT. If a distributor won't pony up what TW demands, it faces ruin because its competing distributors will take its customers. When these vertical deals have taken place in the past, the FCC has imposed arbitration conditions and other restrictions that may restrain those price increases.

Back before satellite and telco competition to cable -- the programmers needed cable and cable needed the programmers. But when one side -- the distribution side -- became competitive, but the other -- the programming side -- did not, all the leverage shifted to the programmers.

sarcasmo

(23,968 posts)

25. Let's see how it plays out dollar wise in 3-5 years.

Reply to onenote (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 10:50 PM

Oct 2016

Third Doctor

(1,574 posts)

10. This should not be allowed

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:39 PM

Oct 2016

One company should not control so much. The prices will sky rocket.

sarcasmo

(23,968 posts)

22. Cable bill will be the price of a mid size car payment.

Reply to Third Doctor (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 07:31 PM

Oct 2016

Friend or Foe

(195 posts)

11. Last I checked..........

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:40 PM

Oct 2016

There still was a Justice Department. There still was a Securities and Exchange Commission. Why, pray tell, with a Democrat in the White House, and one soon to be replacing him, is this even a consideration?

brooklynite

(94,581 posts)

13. Because the Govt can't proactively bar business deals?

Reply to Friend or Foe (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:48 PM

Oct 2016

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)

16. The merged entity will be call "Evil Corp", I presume?

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 01:16 PM

Oct 2016

SMH

dembotoz

(16,806 posts)

17. to some in the industry the att logo is refered to as the death star

Reply to KeepItReal (Reply #16)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 01:48 PM

Oct 2016

i always liked that image

Auggie

(31,172 posts)

18. Bet on it. AT&T is as odious as they come.

Reply to KeepItReal (Reply #16)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 02:19 PM

Oct 2016

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

27. And an eight member Supreme Court

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 10:59 PM

Oct 2016

napi21

(45,806 posts)

28. I sure hope the Justice Dept bans this merger.

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 11:01 PM

Oct 2016

AT&T isn't even running it's current businesses well, let alone be allowed to take on another one to screw up. Secondly, too much media consolidation has caused a lot of the nightmares we have now. There needs to be BREAKUPS, not mergers!

SamKnause

(13,107 posts)

29. How long until 1 corporation owns the entire globe ???

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 11:01 PM

Oct 2016

doc03

(35,340 posts)

30. If anything these companies should be broken up in a dozen pieces

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 11:21 PM

Oct 2016

instead of merging.

Yavin4

(35,440 posts)

31. Ironically, with this deal AT&T would be bigger than when they were the Bell system

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 11:34 PM

Oct 2016

In 1982, the govt. broke up the Bell system:

In 1982, U.S. regulators broke up the AT&T monopoly, requiring AT&T to divest its regional subsidiaries and turning them each into individual companies. These new companies were known as Regional Bell Operating Companies, or more informally, Baby Bells. AT&T continued to operate long distance services, but as a result of this breakup, faced competition from new competitors such as MCI and Sprint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T

Reply to this discussion